Truth in an Amoral Age – Infanticide, Abortion Survivors, and Our Hope

Published March 11, 2019

I have been troubled by the increased
use of the words “moral” and “immoral” to judge actions, ideas, policy, and
legislation, whether they are Democrat or Republican politicians, journalists,
or people talking on Facebook or Twitter. It doesn’t matter what the topics is—border
security, abortion, racism, or climate change—people on both sides of the
proverbial aisle have taken to declaring their position “as morally right” and
the other side “immoral and wrong”.

It is really confusing when people holding opposing opinions on one topic
both seek to own the moral high ground on the issue. How can a civilized
society survive when we are on opposite sides of some very critical issues,
especially those pertaining to life itself?

Since January 22, 2019 when Gov. Cuomo
lit up the Freedom Tower in New York City and celebrated signing a law that
expands access to abortion up to birth, the words “moral” and “immoral” have
been employed ad-nauseum to describe the laws, as well as the attitude of those
present at the signing of the bill.

Still, while I obviously feel it is
immoral to kill babies at any time, late-term abortions and killing babies born
alive during an abortion procedure is immorality on steroids!

For the last six weeks I have been struggling
to process and understand the incongruities surrounding the moral platitudes
being discussed in the late-term abortion and infanticide debate. I have tried
to track the various sides of the arguments to seek a way forward in this
critical cultural conversation. Consider the following points with me:

At least twelve states have passed new
laws that provide additional protections from abortion for unborn babies. Iowa
is going a step further and working to pass a Constitutional Amendment for
their state that declares: “The
constitution does not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the
funding of abortion.”

On the other side of the fence, five
states legislatures, including New York, have passed laws that either remove
limits to abortion and expand access to the procedure for all nine months of
pregnancy, or they are declaring abortion is a fundamental constitutional right
that should be available anytime. (Arizona and Virginia tried but could not get
the required votes to pass similar laws.) In all these laws, the emphasis is on
the right of the woman to decide what is best for her, with no acknowledgement
of the unborn child’s rights or their inherent dignity.

In addition to states passing laws –
some protecting the unborn, others strengthening their right to kill them—the Unites
States Senate introduced The Born Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act that
would require that babies born alive in an abortion receive the same basic
medical treatment as any other baby born at that gestational age.

The Act
(S311) had no application to abortion, the purpose of the law was to ensure that
a baby born during an abortion, an infant completely outside the womb, would be
treated humanely, as opposed to letting the baby die, which is infanticide. Shouldn’t
a child born in this country be entitled to medical care and legal protection
as a person?

Sadly,
the Senate couldn’t get the required 60 votes, and members of the U.S. House have asked more than 10 times
that their version of the bill (H.R. 962) be brought to the floor for a vote. But the Speaker of the House refuses to allow
the bill to be voted on.

While
all these laws are being introduced, passed, or voted down, the mainstream
media has ignored them, beyond the initial week of New York’s celebration and
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam faux paus acknowledging he thinks it is okay to
let a baby die, and that the decision should be between the mother and her
doctor.

The
media recognizes that discussing late-term abortion and infanticide undermines
support for abortion, as people are forced to consider what happens during an abortion,
so they are staying silent. They are not reporting which Senators voted against
providing medical care to a baby born alive during an abortion; they are
protecting the politicians instead of the vulnerable infants.

Late-term abortions
are performed on babies around 20 weeks gestation and beyond. Around the same
time we started debating these abortions, news came that a baby
girl born
at just 21 weeks and weighing less than ONE POUND, is now a thriving 4-year-old.
The truth is that if you don’t want to be pregnant, instead of having an
abortion, we can induce delivery, so the baby can be born. While we all know it
is best to allow a child to be in utero as long as possible, being born early
gives you a better chance of survival than being aborted.

Belief that women need to be able to
abort their baby late in the pregnancy because of the health of the mother or
fetal anomaly diagnosis is used to perpetuate the need for late-term abortions. But medical leaders of the American College of Pediatricians, American
Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical
groups support the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and say abortion is never necessary to save the life of the
mother. Furthermore, perinatal hospice is a better answer if the baby is likely
to die at birth due to health complications.

Since
the new state laws have been passed, a recent Marist poll has found the number
of Americans wanting to limit abortion to the first trimester up to 80 percent,
and folks oppose abortions increased from 70 and 80 percent of in the last
three months—all while many of our elected representatives declare protecting
the right to abortion for all nine months of pregnancy the morally right thing
to do!

As many
of you know, Anglicans for Life doesn’t endeavor to focus on abortion from a
political or legislative view. We are not representatives of one political
party or the other. We believe abortion is a pastoral issue that requires the
Church to actively participate in addressing the topic biblically, as a Gospel
issue.

But the
reality is that we now live in a post Judeo-Christian society, and morality—culturally
speaking—is a fluid concept. Just as truth can be what we want – good morals
are whatever you or I want them to be.

However,
the problem I keep coming back to is how do we as a country, a society,
co-exist with the vast array of truths, morals, and values being defined by
whoever has the microphone or pen? There is a clash coming – and it goes beyond
the topic of abortion, late-term abortion, and infanticide.

Honestly,
it is in times like this, that I am so thankful for my faith, as I cannot see
how we as fallen human beings with very different beliefs of right and wrong
will be able to co-exist in the years to come. Only in knowing that God is in
control, that He is not only omnipotent, that He is omniscient – all-knowing,
all-seeing, and all-wise—can I have peace. It is reassuring to know that our
current predicament doesn’t surprise Him; He knew that we would be here at this
time, and He knows how we will get through it.

Therefore, I have determined afresh that, in His perfect plan, He has called us to be alive during this time in history. We each have a purpose to serve in His Kingdom plan. The truth is this time in our country isn’t about being “moral” or “immoral”, it’s about surviving and actually thriving in an environment that is amoral – void of morality. And we can only do that with Him, the one true judge of what is moral and immoral, because He is with us always.